The Laymen of 1860 are not the unlettered men of twenty years since, and to deny them any deliberation as to the qualification of Curates or Incumbents, reading or preaching capabilities, appears to me very bad policy on the part of our Ecclesiastical superiors.
It would ill become me to set up as an Episcopus Episcoporum, believing, however, as I do that this assembling of the Laity and Clergy would tend to Christian Unity I cannot resist urgently insisting on this Church Reform. Speaking for my own order the Laity are hardly dealt with! How many real grievances they must now silently endure, without the slightest power to remove or abate them! How much which relates to discipline, and the conducting the services is diametrically opposed to the wishes of the Laity! How often has the length of the Morning Service been objected to. Only the other day Lord Ebury did what he could to shorten the services, but in vain; there seems a superstitious reverence for repetition, for retaining certain phrases which must strike high, low, and broad Churchmen as objectionable. The Prayer for both Houses of Parliament under our “most religious and gracious Queen” is truly admirable, and how any Lords Spiritual and Temporal can join in such a comprehensive petition and yet vote against a great Educational boon like the repeal of the last tax on Knowledge I for one cannot understand. But in this Prayer I demur to applying the same term “most gracious” to the Queen, and to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Who can deny that damp, ill-ventilated, or icy cold Churches, are not fruitful causes of disease? I attended the Sons of the Clergy Festival, under the Dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral on the 23rd May. It was a warm summer’s day, but owing to the intense cold rushing currents of air, I with others was obliged to leave. People were shivering with cold—and this in the 19th century! A boasted scientific age! A few years ago I was at St. Paul’s Sons of the Clergy Festival, and was then compelled to leave on account of the bitter cold. I wrote on that occasion a polite note to Dean Milman, in which I urged that some means of warming the Cathedral should be adopted. I received no reply; and this is not surprising, for a more Judaic High Priest—a very Caiphas cannot be found than Henry Hart Milman. Why there might have been some excuse for thus trifling with the Public health at the time my Grand-father was Prebendary of this Cathedral, because the appliances of science were not in his day known. Let me tell this supercilious Priest that a curious public are enquiring of what use are Deans and Canons with their thousands a year, if they do not even take the trouble to make their Churches comfortable? It is very discreditable to the Dean and Canons that such beggarly parsimony should year after year prevail. Why not FREE ACCESS to this noble Edifice? Why this miserable Clerical impost of 4s 2d? Why it is an Education of itself to survey
“until thy mind hath got by heart
Its eloquent proportions.”“The Dome—the vast and wondrous Dome,”
Sir Christopher Wren’s rare masterpiece, of whom it was said,
“Si monumentum requiris,
Circurnspice,”
“if you want his monument, look around.” This glorious Temple, which stands alone for grandeur, worthiest of God, the Holy and the True, deserves a better fate than to be starved by its Priests on the pretext of a false and wretched economy. Every thing that ministers to comfort is seen in a nobleman’s mansion, shall God’s House alone be dishonoured by such paltry and mean frugality? Who can deny the attendance of invalids at Matins, with litany and communion, is not itself an ordeal, but to combine this length of Service with a Sermon of an hour’s duration is an infliction of no ordinary character. I do not say that when Paul has served for a text, that Plato or Epictetus have preached, but who shall say the Preacher does not too often exhibit himself and his crude ideas, and NOT the Bible’s. “It is this text of mine,” that too often proceeds from the lips of ostentatious Preachers.
It is unreasonable to expect that 20,000 clergymen of the Church of England, are qualified as preachers, shall be able, one and all, at least twice a week, to talk or read something that will command attention for fifty or sixty minutes? Why not some UNIFORMITY in the Prayer, or no Prayer, before sermon? Why not some authorized version of psalms and hymns to be sung in all the churches? Why this diversity? The layman has a right to say to the Bishop, if you forbid me to take any part in the government and discipline of the Church, I cannot contribute towards the “extension” of such injustice. You nominate or appoint a clerk, who ought to know how to read; yet how few are capable of MERELY READING the Service, I will not say with propriety alone, but with common decency. Who has not “suffered some,” to use an American phrase, by the deplorable deficiencies in pronunciation, and accentuation? Who with any ear for fit cadence, is not pained to be obliged to listen to the monotonous whining of the simple and beautiful Ritual of the Church of England? It is from the reading desk and the pulpit that boys and girls are told they will hear their mother tongue in all its purity. But is this true? It is not only not true, but the very reverse of truth. The forms of Prayer and Thanksgivings, as literary compositions, are perfect specimens of style. What English prose will venture to challenge a comparison with the dignity and melody of the Collects? And yet, remember, the musical and rhetorical excellence of the Liturgy, consists chiefly of translations from the Latin! Surely such persuasive, such affecting petitions to Heaven deserve a better fate, than to be murdered by ruthless and ignorant men who have missed their vocation. Some mouth and mutter, some rant and roar, others simper and squeak, and not a few read the Service with the same apathy as an animal chewing the cud.
Yet the Laity of the Diocese of London cannot interfere, cannot even hint to such readers they had better retire. This overgrown diocese contains two millions and a half of inhabitants. It is divided into four hundred and thirty-three parishes, with eight hundred and fifty-five clergy. Common sense dictates dividing the Diocese of London. Why not a Bishop of Westminster? Yet not one word can laymen utter on such topics, in any deliberative church assembly, and I submit the time has come when all this must be REFORMED, and when the Diocese of London must be at UNITY in itself. [30]
It was my intention to have said a few words about Lord John Russell’s scheme of Reform, but I can only just glance with some pity on his poor little forlorn, tender Bill. I can only view it as an instalment of better things to come. The ignoring the claims of £10 or £12 Lodgers in great London parishes especially, would be an act of extreme injustice, and I hope in Committee, the Foreign Secretary will adopt this clause to be proposed by Mr. James.
My extreme anxiety to carry the Libraries Act in St. Marylebone, must atone for any repetitions of last warning words to the Ratepayers. Believe me the enemies of Literature, of innocent, intellectual recreation, are too astute to tolerate fair, or indeed any, arguments in favour of this most hopeful Legislative enactment. They are well aware that reason is too strong for nonsense in the long run, and that if this wise proposal is argued on its own merits, and not hashed or mixed up with Parochial extravagance, or misgovernment, and other extraneous matter, that the ground on which they stand will sink from beneath them. They tell you “this is not the time to agitate the question,” and that it is “inexpedient at present,” and will weary you with some unintelligible jargon about voting against the Act, but at the same time agreeing to the “general principle!” Such miserable, specious excuses are invariably set up in all cases which will not bear the force of argument. The right time with such mean obstructives, let me assure you, will NEVER arrive. Once again I beg to remind you that a majority of TWO-THIRDS of the Ratepayers present at the Meeting settles the question of rejecting or adopting the Act, and as by a strange blunder no Poll can be demanded, I entreat you to be early in your attendance, and give a plumper for this truly benevolent measure.